Kantian

Keith, a little quote before we start: "I would rather be reported by my bitterest enemy among philosophers than a friend innocent of philosophy."

Keith. Suddenly, this discussion has taken an interesting turn… on the one hand you say you have read Kant, but on the other, you offer criticism of what Kant wrote. I don't know whether to take you seriously, since I believe that one must be able to understand and explain a philosopher before he is capable of attacking him. Either you read Kant and understood him or you did not. If you did not grasp the arcane terminology without getting beyond the limits of modern, 20th century English, then you are not at all suited to comment on Kantian philosophy in the least. I know all of Kant's weak spots i.e. unconvincing arguments, insufficient reasoning, et. al. but Rand's approach did not demonstrate a crumb of understanding of Kant beyond gaunt strawmen she was fond of inventing. Now, on to your response. I will leave behind the agreements and focus on the disagreements, objections, or questions...

What is your point here?

Then you are capable of grasping the difference between the ineffable, experience and the words we use to refer to objects of experience.

What? I do not understand you. Am I supposed to believe the alternative that the environment comes ready with concepts we have nothing to do with, that we are not responsible of?

You must be joking. We always refer to existence, even when writing fiction. A centaur is based on a conglomerate of two ideas we gain from experience- the human being and a horse. While the centaur is not found in reality or experience, it is a reference to reality. What do you call those quasi-fictional stories that are based on the kernel of truth, say, those television movie-of-the-week that are dramatized for sensational effect? Perhaps you are laboring with a different definition of reality than I am, and this false-starts the discussion. And as for the question of words touching reality, our words are a poor substitute of reality in itself. And I do not claim to "touch reality." I may be able to experience it, but once I strain the quality of experience into language, something is lost.

Experience is overwhelming to the degree language or words utterly fail us. It is a phenomenological analysis of the immediate given in experience. I already asked you not to break up my sentences.

It's called doing philosophy. I am a strict empiricist to the degree that our ideas are mainly derived from experience, that we learn about our ideas by interaction, repetition and forming a cache of natural assumptions. I would argue that in doing so, all those second-order inferences as language leads to the limit of our understanding, that all meanings of words are its use in the sense of ordinary activity.

If you had read your Kant, you would not ask me this. In CPR A110, Kant makes the assumption that there is a chain of states of experience, or states of representations ordered in time. In order for such a series to be possible, they must be united as the representation of one conscious subject. Hence, the subject is capable of making "judgments" about the representations. If the association between representations were fluky, coincidental, then no judgment could ever be guaranteed. So, the associations between the representations must be thought of as necessary. And so on.

You're merely regurgitating the dogma of Objectivism that does not really address my earlier passages. Do you want to try concentrating on what I wrote again, without simply disagreeing, in puerile defense of objectivism, while failing to say why. Furthermore, FYI, there are 3 or 4 other ways to destroy Cartesianism.

Defend your criticism on how it is unsupported. I already outlined the argument about the unity of experience above.

Yes, it is easily understood, as long as one does the required homework. Apparently you have not. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. The "transcendental subject of thought" is simply the formal character of the self in Kant's epistemology. It seems that you have neither the wherewithal nor the patience to understand Kant so are you wasting my time?

You're being willfully dense here. Where did I say that changes the reality of the situation? It's like explaining philosophy to the regulars at <a href="http://www.alliedconservatives.com." target="_blank">www.alliedconservatives.com.</a>

Such as? Please refrain from making unwarranted assertions.

Unsurprisingly, you misunderstood again. Where did I say that I know something is known prior to existence? Analytic knowledge is known prior to experience, not existence. For example I already know that by definition, an unmarried man is a bachelor. I need not have recourse to experience and test this via scientific methods. Please, go re-read Kant or at least a primer on Kant and save me the trouble of teaching you philosophy 100.

Completely and utterly false. Nowhere does Kant claim a 'mystical or arbitrary dimension' in the CPR, nor does he state the "knowledge exists prior to existence." Kant wanted to synthesize empiricism and rationalism, and in doing so he formulated transcendental idealism. He found out how dogmatic the rationalists, like Leibniz were, and how skeptical the empiricists, like Hume were, and tried to reach a middle ground between those two opposite camps. It is interesting to note that you are not really addressing what I wrote and are only regurgitating what Rand thought Kant was saying. I have her books at hand and I know a cheap hack plagiarist when I see one.

Actually not that much older- Aristotle was his student. It seems that you have a reading problem. We are not left with the platonic forms. How the hell did you make that illegitimate inference from what I wrote? And furthermore, Rand's Neo-aristotleanism has been done much better by a theologian, Thomas Aquinas. Aren't you aware of the fact that by accepting Aristotle as dogma that led to the stalling of philosophy (especially in logic) for 2000 years?

Given your constant mischaracterization of Kant by regurgitating entirely untrue objectivist dogma, I have a hard time believing you. In order to really criticize a philosopher, one must demonstrate his understanding of the target. So far you have not shown me a fleeting shred of evidence that you are anywhere within sniffing distance of the RV vendors at the parking lot of the ballpark.

If the shoe fits, fella, why deny it? I would be willing to change my mind if you demonstrated behavior to the contrary. All you have done so far is mouthing Rand, while I am trying to explain you the intricacies of transcendentalism. I am sorry if you take fair characterizations as insults, but at least in this thread and the other one in the philosophy forum, it is entirely justified.


Why not? Isn't it true that any form of subjectivity relies on empirical input? Yet another criticism of yours that falls wide of the mark.

Yes, she's a telepath whose powers reaches across space and time all the way back to 1782 and probed Kant's evil mind, right? I have all of rand's books- Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, For the new intellectual, The New Left, Philosophy, who needs it?, Romantic manifesto, virtue of selfishness, etc. nowhere in these books does she accurately represent Kant. Instead, he's the Hitler of philosophy. it is interesting to note that nowhere in her philosophy she ever address the fundamental problems of philosophy, hardly ever quotes other thinkers beyond Aristotle unless they are meant to support one of her famous arguments from ridicule. She often claims that Kant said the mind was "impotent." That is incorrect, since he started from empiricist principles like Hume, and demonstrated his reasoning. Rand never shows why his reasoning is incorrect or flawed; rather she constantly mischaracterized what Kant stood for and demonized his thinking. It's easier that way, but that doesn't make it true.

I could be wrong, but from what I read, she doesn't do philosophy in the academic manner- address the systems by demonstrating her understanding of their works and then introduce her reasoning why they are right or wrong. There are far too many superficial generalizations in her work to be considered as anything serious in philosophy. From that basis, I gather she did not read Kant beyond a primer.

Bravo. Stepping out from under the umbrella of Randianism will only enrich your understanding for your own personal gain.

The mystery continues.

Are we even on the same thread? I have been quoting excerpts in order to justify my exegesis, unlike Ayn Rand's style.

Wrong. I am not going on their say so but my own. I've already read the required reading, written several essays, some dating to hundreds of pages on the history of philosophy, and other topics, so I am fairly certain of my knowledge to stand on my own two feet.

I apologize for the obscure language, wording and phrasing on my part. That is not really a contradiction, but it's understandable how you misconstrue my words. Let me put it in another way. "A transcendental enquiry is done by analyzing the possibility of a priori knowledge and is undertaken by investigating the a priori features of our knowledge of objects." We do not conduct an a priori enquiry by assuming its features from the get-go.

It's up to you to learn the difference between the traditional self and kantian self as I have outlined in my previous post. Do a little research, and maybe you will find a better writer than I.

False. you are not the paragon of knowledge. stop pretending to be the standard of understanding, and assume every writing should cater to your level of intelligence. The same thing happened to me when I started to read Hegel once I finished all of Rand's works. I was lost! I could not make heads or tails of what he wrote. Nevertheless, in time, given the appropriate philosophical background (reading up the historical movement) and training (terminology) neither Hegel nor Kant are obscurantists.

Sheesh. This is the criticism of someone who is intimidated. I do not hope the reader will accept my authority, but that I prove I have understood the subject material sufficiently. Can you say the same? whether the book is "great" is a matter of taste. The empiricist will say that Kant could not have succeeded in demonstrating the validity of the synthetic a priori because that sort of knowledge is "unknowable." The rationalist will argue that Kant was inconsistent in his attempt to derive transcendental idealism from certain premises, and what not. I am fully aware of most of the modern criticism of Kant and some of them are valid.

Great! You are taking the same steps I took 4 or 5 years ago. Ayn Rand is my gateway drug to philosophy, too. personally I think Hume, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein are superior to Kant. I adopted this name in order to get under the skins of the naturalists here.

Wrong. re-read the relevant passage, carefully. Do not come back until you understand what a priori knowledge really means. Never mind what Kant said. Do a google search, and maybe my failures at explaining will be forgotten.

It is of your own misunderstanding that "a priori knowledge is known prior to existence" which leads you to these inappropriate charges of mysticism. Rand would be very proud of you, though. And the correct quote is <a href="http://people.whitman.edu/~asayjf/Kant2.htm" target="_blank">“I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith”</a> Please read the link before you reply.
~Transcendentalist~
[edited for grammar]

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Primal

Keith good points, excellent job refuting Kant. I admire your patience and tolerance in doing so in fact.

As for Ayn Rand Objectivism: I disagree with it as well, but notice likewise Kant and his ilk do so for the wrong reasons. As Isaac Asimov pointed out method is as important as content, so while I agree Kant may be right about Rand being wrong(how a subjectivist could believe that is beyond me) I think he knows that more out of luck then proper method. I also notice that he trades arguments for insults. In shorth, I believe there is a way to refute Rand, and Kant's way is not it.

And yes for anyone interested, I am still ignoring Kant, and trust that Keith has probably done a kinder job of representing Kant then Kant himself could have.

I notice that Kant uses the word "deconstruct" and "transcedental" quite a bit, revealing some postmodernist/relativist/ irrationalist leanings. Note this: Kant is not for reason,naturalism or humanist values. Kant is for a sort of religious viewpoint given a facelift. In fact the "great" Immanuel Kant was an ardent defender of religion who wrote his book partly, by his own admittance to squash both atheism and freethought. Kant in fact says this in the Intro to a Critique of pure reason, much like Berkeley based his system on religious motivations.

Kant: <a href="http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/cprsearchf.pl?query=/cgi-bin/mfs/02/02pref-b.htm?646#mfs" target="_blank">http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/cprsearchf.pl?query=/cgi-bin/mfs/02/02pref-b.htm?646#mfs</a>

So atheism, materialism and freethought are akin to fanaticism and superstition? This is the Kant that Kant says destroyed the "God's eye view" model, this is the Kant that board Kant implies one is being like a theist for denying.

Thank you for saving us from the horrors of atheism and freethought Kant! LOL.

That is no friend to reason or secularism. That is in fact the basis for a defense of religion, supernaturalism and theism.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Kantian

... finespun arguments in favour of useful truths make just as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths.” (Preface to the 2nd edition) Read and weep, Primal

I wasn’t aware that Keith had “refuted” Kant. Could you direct my attention to the passages I might have overlooked?
What would these reasons be? Step up to the plate and take a swing at that beautiful hanging curveball i've tossed your way, Primal!
Essentially that statement shows how much you really understood, primal. And not to belabor the point, but in the likelihood you forgot I am no subjectivist.
Would you care to list the “way?” I have not refuted Rand just yet, because I haven’t even tried.
“Kinder” and “accurate” are two different things in an attempt to represent Kant. Now run along, the adults are talking.
False. This is merely another winner from the house of Primal, i.e. more evidence of your ignorance. Unless you’d like to try and show why a 20th century interpretation of Kant is justified? Kant’s usage of these terms is not identical to those of the postmodernists.
Strawman. That is another false statement about Kant and goes to demonstrate the paucity of your familiarity with Kant’s literature. It is no wonder why you neglected to state that he believed that the resurrection to be a myth, that his goal was to reduce religion down to the phenomena of reason and morality, and jettison all supernatural dogma.
It is disingenuous to imply that Kant and Berkeley are similar. Berkeley was a theologian, a bishop and in the end, an apologist. Kant was a professional philosopher who wrote for other philosophers.
You are mistaken, as usual, in your attempts to lift a half sentence and present it without its context. He is saying that criticism in any sphere is possible and may be injurious, including idealism and skepticism, but they never really hit home in the public sphere. In the very paragraph you have neglected to explore, Kant was discussing about the embarrassing state metaphysics was in, and criticizes theologians as well, for not having formulated a philosophy that was up to the standards of the new science of his day (the success of the mechanics of Isaac Newton).
It seems that cheap shots are your specialty, and little else. Can you add anything of relevance, or are you intent to sabotage this thread, like in the other one in the philosophy forum in order to gain retribution for the ass-whupping you obviously haven’t gotten over?
~Transcendentalist~

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Primal

Kant I said I was ignoring you. Please stop writing to me and asking me questions because that is harassment and I will report you. Thanx.

Kantian

I have yet to locate a finer, especially covert endorsement of solipsism!

Offhand, it's safe to say that you do not own this board. True or false? And what makes you think that you are the only reason i wrote that post?


[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Primal

Keith: I find it very ironic that Kant seems to always be implying that you are some sort of mindless Ayn Rand follower, all the while Kant's own board name and almost religious reverence for a philosophical book belies his pretension to originality. I'm sure the real Immanuel Kant; the philosopher not the person on the board, would be very proud of him. Wouldn't you agree?

P.S. Kant when you signed up on the secular web you agreed to certain rules; one of which was not to harass people or "be a jerk". By pestering me while I have very politely asked you not to and cussing at me, you are violating such rules and I will report you for this. This is your final warning. I hope you'll choose the more mature course of action.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Keith Russell

Primal said:
"Keith: I find it very ironic that Kant seems to always be implying that you are some sort of mindless Ayn Rand follower, all the while Kant's own board name and almost religious reverence for a philosophical book belies his pretension to originality. I'm sure the real Immanuel Kant; the philosopher not the person on the board, would be very proud of him."

Primal, the irony of this has not escaped me.

Keith.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

tronvillain

Primal:
Well, you can report Kant if you like, but as he does not appear to have broken any rules, it will accomplish nothing. Grow a spine.

Primal

Well I certainly wouldn't report him to you Tron and yes reffering to past posts as "ass whooping" does seem to me like being rude.

Also is it customary for Mods to insult people?

I recently looked up the rules and found this:

I believe this statement alone:

makes Kant illegible for being reported. This statement is defamatory,abusive and harassing. I even think it is in-line with being a jerk. The rules do not say "unless the opponent lacks a spine", the rules say don't do it because such behavior turns discussions into a smut contest. So yes, I believe this and other material by Kant gives me more then enough reason to report the guy. Thank you and goodnight.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Kantian

*buzzer*
I have no such “religious reverence” for Kant's works, nor do I have any pretensions of originality. While it is true that I admire the ingenuity where Kant made that great Copernican turn that changed philosophy forever, but that is about as far as it goes as a matter of taste. Another member of the secular web goes by the handle Jesus Christ. Does that automatically make him a fundamentalist deserving of ridicule? Perhaps I should change my name to Persona non grata to avoid giving out false impressions.

I felt appropriate to call out Keith's slavish allegiance to Rand, because he is incapable of seeing the shortcomings of Rand himself. I have yet to see any reason not to. And Primal, as the impeccable troll, I don't know about you but I don't give a shit.

FWIW: The book itself is horribly written, no thanks to the advanced age (57) when he wrote it. It is a hodgepodge collection of meanderings that really do not substantiate one another- i detect an embarrasing schism running through the first book, as well as between all 3 Critiques. I have no illusions about Kant's greatness or failures. Thanks to the modern commentators, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521093899/qid=1033513896/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8758221-4263848?v=glance" target="_blank">Johnathan Bennet's Kant's Analytic</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0416291007/qid=1033513942/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8758221-4263848?v=glance" target="_blank">P. F. Strawson's Bound of Sense</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0816614369/qid=1033513995/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8758221-4263848?v=glance" target="_blank">Gilles Deleuze's Critical Philosophy</a>, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1855065606/qid=1033514065/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8758221-4263848?v=glance" target="_blank">Wilkerson's tried and true Commentary</a> I am capable of both praising and condemning Kant at once.

Now please retract these spurious characterizations and offer an apology, or restrain from making such in the future.

~Transcendentalist~